NASA = Never A Straight Answer
The Brookings Report
Officially titled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs, the "Brookings Report" was produced by NASA and the Brookings Institute in 1960; it represents the findings of a study concerning what should be done if NASA were to ever find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. NASA was supposed to be a transparent public agency, but the Brookings Report ended all hope of that. The Brookings Report conclusion: all of society would unravel and the world (as we know it) would disintegrate before our very eyes if any evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life is ever revealed to the public. Maybe people in the early 1960s would have reacted in such a way, but it is highly unlikely that this would be the case in the world of today; modern minds have been effectively conditioned to accept intelligent extraterrestrial life as a likely reality. Because of the Brookings Report, it was decided that if any evidence of intelligent non-human life was ever discovered -- NASA would keep it secret! That's what they decided to do! They decided they wouldn't tell us if they found anything -- and we are supposed to trust them! It's absurd: the "most transparent agency in the world" agreed to conceal information? What? So, then what was the point of NASA after that? If they aren't going to tell us what they actually find, what is the point of having the agency in the first place? Maybe this has to do with why people say that N-A-S-A stands for "never a straight answer". It seems highly ridiculous that this would be the case, but it most certainly is. This is something to always keep in mind when dealing with NASA: they are not going to tell us the truth about extraterrestrial life -- even if they find some. How do you like that? NASA agreed to withhold information and lie to you if they ever found anything -- and they did so before they ever even went anywhere! Isn't NASA funded by taxes (theft) that all of us pay? This should be an outrage, but no one really even knows about the Brookings Report. How can someone be outraged by something they don't know exists? Everyone should be aware: as a matter of documented fact, NASA is not going to tell us the truth if they find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. We should not trust them; they aren't going to tell us the truth anyway, so why would we trust them? The reason NASA agreed to lie: a disintegration of society would pose a threat to "national security". Ironically, the government's official project Blue Book concluded that UFO's pose no threat to national security; yet, information concerning UFO's is classified and unavailable to the public under ... national security! So many things are protected by absurd "loops" like that. Have you ever tried to actually talk to a human being instead of a recorded artificially intelligent robot on the other end of the phone? How many "loops" must one go through just to get to an actual person? How many times have you become so frustrated that you just gave up and hung up? Frustration is very effective in getting people to give up, which certainly applies to NASA; many people have given up on NASA due to frustration. It turns out that frustration is totally appropriate considering the blatant nature of the Brookings Report -- we would be idiots to trust or believe them. This has gone on and on and on for decades now; we have no idea in the world what they actually know. Most people believe in the truthfulness of NASA; if only they knew about the Brookings Report ... or ... would they still deny? Sometimes people will deny something because it is just too difficult to accept. If I accept some horrible truth as being real, then what kind of person would I be if I did nothing about it? Sometimes accepting a truth means accepting a responsibility, who wants to do that? No one really, not anymore. This explains why so many people reject anything that would compel them to "do something" -- can't know it's true and do nothing, so it has to be false. That's how people can deny the truth right to its face; this is often referred to as Cognitive Dissonance, and it can be devastating to a person's ability to learn new things and make progress in life. You have to face reality, whatever it is, and follow truth wherever it goes ("Don't go there!") -- even if you have to go places you don't like. If the truth goes there, you must follow -- no matter what. The only way we get "somewhere", is by "going there"; so, don't say "don't go there" -- just "go there", because "there" is "where" truth can be found. The truth is -- NASA is withholding information from us -- that's the truth, so we must "go there".
A Universal Language
Intelligence Understands Mathematics, Physics, Geometry, Biology, and Chemistry
There is a common language that exists everywhere in the Universe. This language is the language of mathematics, physics, geometry, chemistry, and biology; this is going to be the same everywhere. All intelligent beings are going to be able to understand this language, no matter from where they have come. If we were planning to have a conversation with "aliens", mathematics and science would be the most logical method of communicating. The same might be true if we were trying to leave a message, not for aliens, but for people in a distant future; the language of mathematics will endure and be valid forever -- it is the eternal and universal language of all time and space.
Face on Mars
We Were Here
What if you wanted to send a message to someone on another planet? What if you were on Mars and wanted to send a message to Earth? What would you build on your planet if you wanted someone to see it from space? An enormous geometrically significant face might fit the bill; that area of Mars (Cydonia) is strangely similar to Giza on Earth, at least geometrically and mathematically. If we were trying to send a signal, that could be seen from space, we might do something like carve out huge trenches and set them ablaze; it would be like setting the Nazca lines on fire to signal someone in space. It would be the same concept as someone lost on a remote island putting a giant flaming S-O-S in the sand. There are all kinds of things that can be seen from space and all kinds of things can be imagined to be used as a signal. What if you were on the Moon and wanted to set up a signal to let people on Earth know you were there? What might you do? Well ... on the Moon, in the Central Bay Sinus Medii mare region, is a crater known as Ukert. Ukert is a special crater because it is the closest spot on the Moon to Earth, and since the Moon is basically always facing Earth, Ukert crater is essentially right in our faces (in relation to the bigness of space) all the time. If there is anything on the Moon that Earth people are ever going to see, it has certainly got to be Ukert crater. Now ... if you were on the Moon and wanted to use an enormous geometric figure to let people on Earth know you were there, where would you put it? In the place most likely to be seen, Ukert ... and what do we find when we look at Ukert crater through a telescope? ... An enormous equilateral triangle! Not only that, the triangle is perfectly placed inside the circle of the crater so that the points of the triangle touch the circle. This is an important symbol for a whole lot of reasons, and geometry (a universal language) is one of them. This is something that is impossible ... unless -- someone was there. What? That sounds insane! Yes it does, but it also makes perfect sense and quite rightly conforms to reality when put into its proper context. Why is there a perfect equilateral triangle inside a circle located at the most visible place on the Moon from Earth? Why would this be there? Because, someone used to be there a very long time ago, that's why -- and they were trying to leave us a message. What message? Maybe "we were here" was the message, but even that says so much more. But we wouldn't know anything about that, now would we? ... Have you ever heard of the Brookings Report? If we look at the Moon from the perspective of "someone might have been there", what might we see that we do not see now? Maybe nothing, but what if we do? The only way we will see something is if we look for it. If we start with the idea that "nothing is there" and never bother to look, then what are we going to find? Nothing! That's right. So, the only way to actually find something is by looking for it. When you buy a new car, you end up seeing the same car all over the place; suddenly, everyone has one. That is because you are looking for it. But did you see it all over the place before you had the new car? No, because you weren't looking for it. Does that mean the number of those vehicles on the streets changed? No, it means your perception and what you have chosen to decode into reality has changed; this is true of anything. If we have any chance of finding "something" we are going to have to open our minds and start looking for it; it is the only way.
Did they really go to the Moon?
Let's Assume they did
There are many conspiracy theories concerning the Moon, no doubt about that. There are a number of very interesting questions as to the legitimacy of NASA's (never a straight answer) official Moon landing story. Questions about the radiation belts and how the astronauts were able to pass through them unharmed seem to be without an answer. It seems most likely that they did go to the Moon, just not the way NASA said they did; some researchers suggest, through a secret space program, they were going to the Moon long before the Apollo missions. Others say they didn't go at all; there may well be some legitimacy to those theories, but for now, let's assume that they did go to the Moon just as NASA says they did. Let's also, even though many will provide a compelling argument about the authenticity of the pictures, assume that the pictures provided by NASA are of the same Moon we see with our own eyes in the night sky. This is a lot of assuming, sure, but sometimes we have to work within assumptions. If the ideas about the Moon landing being a hoax are true, then this whole thought process is in vain; but for now, let's assume that they did, in fact, go to the Moon as is reported officially -- even though we know that is probably not true.
Nothing but Craters
Things are very different on the Moon than they are on Earth; on Earth, there are many geological processes that are not on the Moon at all. Earth has water, air, clouds, storms, wind, volcanoes, earthquakes, and all kinds of other stuff that endlessly erode and reshape the planet. The Moon has none of those things, but nonetheless, it has been eroded and shaped -- relentlessly bombarded -- by an entirely different process: a constant meteor rain. Consequently, the Moon has been left with nothing but craters and a rolling rounded gently sculpted landscape. Everything on the Moon has been substantially eroded; it is important to keep that in mind whenever we are looking at pictures of the Moon.
Researchers have spent endless hours, lifetimes in some cases, looking at images and videos of the Moon; most of us haven't done anything like that, nothing of the sort. How much time have you spent studying the Moon? Typically, most people have seen a few pictures of the Moon and see it occasionally at night, but few of us have spent decades studying it. If someone has dedicated their entire life to a particular subject, we should at least be decent enough to hear what they have to say about it; maybe after a lifetime of work, they might just know something we don't. Maybe not too, but there's nothing wrong with having a look. Why should we not have a look? And what makes me more knowledgeable than someone who has spent way more time researching than I have? We should at least hear what people have to say; many ideas have been dismissed only to later be taken seriously. When people first started suggested that people should wash their hands, they were laughed at to their faces. Now? Yes, we all know. That's why it is important to not let yourself become so arrogant that you would ridicule someone to the point of public humiliation and degrading laughter square to the face. If someone laughed directly to your face about your ideas, you might not like that very much, huh? No, probably not, so don't do it to others. Besides, what happens when you have conducted yourself in such a way, then later find out the person you arrogantly laughed at was right all along? What are you going to do then? Apologize? Probably not; if you are the kind of person who would laugh in the face of another, you will most likely not be interested in apologizing to anyone. Pathetic! Apologies aside -- don't be that person; be the person who will at least hear the opinions of others. You never know when you are going to learn something new; but not laughers and ridiculers, they will always be ignorant. An emotionally mature open-minded person will hear all viewpoints, look at all evidence, and consider all possibilities before making up their mind. Only the pitifully ignorant dismiss things before researching them; in fact, that is how you stay ignorant, by ignoring things. If you won't investigate things, you will always be ignorant ... period. So, when someone comes along and says "hey, look at this over here" don't just assume you know it all: go have a look, have a listen, and hear what they have to say. If, after you have considered the information you still think it's nonsense, then dismiss it -- but don't just dismiss things because you have never heard of them before. Wise people know this is how you learn things you did not know ... but when people ignore and reject things, by reflex action, instead of careful consideration and critical thinking -- they remain ignorant. However, we must not remain ignorant; we will listen to what researchers have said about the Moon. We will consider what they have had to say and compare it to our own knowledge base, sense of morality, intuition, and perceptions of reality. We will carefully consider the implications of what is being said, and then on our own terms and according to our own personal sense of reality, we will then decide what we think of the information being presented to us -- this is the only path to knowledge.
According to Moon researchers, there are quite a large number of things that just don't seem to fit anywhere into the official story of the Moon. Again ... some of these people have dedicated their entire lives to the study of such things; we can at least respect that dedication enough to hear them out. One of the things they point out is something they refer to as a shard, tower, or spire. Apparently this "shard", or whatever it is, was photographed by the Lunar Orbiter program in February of 1967. They say this thing extends up over a mile above the surface of the Moon; the suggestion of such a thing seems outrageous considering billions of years of incessant meteor bombardment. How could there be anything standing on the surface of the Moon? According to our current understanding of things this would be impossible, but people who have dedicated their entire lives to it are saying it's true. How could anything be standing up like that? According to what we have always been told, there just plain and simply can't be anything like that -- but there is. What it is can be argued, but if it is cannot; there is something there (which has been factually verified by viewing pictures of the same location from all different angles and alignments) and it is standing upright on the surface of the Moon. It cannot exist, yet it does exist; so, what is it? After billions of years of bombardment nothing should be standing, but here is this "shard" towering nearly a mile and a half above the surface of the Moon! This alone is simply amazing, astonishing really ... but there's more. Researchers have shown that, upon zooming in to the photographs of the "shard", some absolutely shocking things appear in the photos. Those who have studied this say that there is a "geometric nature" to the shard; they say the shard has been bombarded and whittled away in a manner that has left us with somewhat of a cross-section view of it. Apparently, the shard has a "layered structure" and within this multi-layering is "cubical geometric form". In the same photos, above this strange (apparently geometrical) "shard" is something else that should not be there either. Zoomed out pictures show something "hanging" in the sky above the shard. It is some kind of haze ... some kind of ... something, that can't really be identified. This was of particular interest to certain researchers, who then began to take a closer look. Something we should keep in mind: the technology we have today is amazing; smartphones are more powerful than everything NASA had in the 1960s. Regular people can now analyze photographs in ways NASA only dreamed of when they first captured photos of the Moon; it is fantastical to think of how far advanced we have become since then. If the average person has access to technology more powerful than all of what NASA had in the 1960s, what do you think the most advanced modern technology can do? It is amazing what we can do, and it is important to keep this in mind. When researchers began looking at Moon photos for the first time with modern technology, they were simply astonished by what they began to realize. It is suggested that at least someone at NASA would have known about what researchers believe they have found, but then again -- the Brookings Report ... yeah, uhm, sorry; if what the researchers have found is real, we know NASA will never tell us. True story or not, who knows, but we do know NASA wouldn't tell us if it was -- keep that in mind. So this is what happened: Moon photos were sent through photo enhancing software and all kinds of stuff showed up in the pictures that no-one had ever seen before. They found all kinds of strange things, things that simply should not be there. There is something strange at the horizon line all around the area where the "shard" and the "haze" are located. Upon zooming in to these areas of the enhanced photos, researchers again say there is some kind of "standing geometric structure" that clearly should not be there -- let alone standing upright; it just doesn't make any sense. There is no reason these things should be sticking up off the surface, not unless something else is happening that is beyond what we typically think is happening ... no-one actually believes they really know what is happening, do they? At this point, that would be a brilliant stroke of ignorantly displayed arrogance, at least from some points of observation. What is this in the photos? Geometric structure? Above the surface of the Moon? This just doesn't make any sense; what is going on here? Researchers found that adjusting the color reveals something even more fascinating: the most reflective parts of these anomalies are actually within the layered structure, not on the outside surface of it. Apparently, the structure reflects and refracts light as if it were made of a crystalline substance. What they are talking about is why a diamond shines as it does: the most dense and reflective parts are actually within the diamond. Researchers are saying that whatever is there is something very similar to glass, which of course is baffling to everyone. The photos have since been subjected to an even more advanced image software enhancement technology called "fractal processing", which is the same photo processing technology the US Army uses; it really should be some good technology ... you would think so anyway. After the Army's fractal processing technology was applied to the photos, even more stunning images appeared. Researchers believe much of what they are seeing are "fractures" in a much larger object made of a glass-like substance -- a dome ... and that the internal structure of the fractures is what is bouncing light around within the layers of cubical geometric glass-like material. This sounds impossible, but fractal processing technology makes even the faintest things come into pretty good focus ... at least according to those who have analyzed these photos. Researchers see the remains of a glass dome that has been bombarded by meteors and radiation; they say that what is in the pictures is exactly what we should expect to see if there were once people living in glass domes on the Moon. How fantastic is that to consider? This is indeed something fascinating to contemplate; did someone once live on the Moon? Oh my ... did people really live there? Who could have lived there? Who could have constructed something like gigantic domes on the Moon that people could actually live in? Who could do such a thing? What kind of people could have ever done something like that? What an amazing idea! What kind of materials and technology would have been needed to construct habitable domes on the Moon? Such things we cannot imagine ... well, maybe we can -- turns out that people have imagine it; they say that NASA's pictures show the remains of artificial glass-like structures on the Moon. Maybe it's just a fluke; surely these particular pictures from the Lunar Orbiter program are just defective in some way. It's just something wrong with the pictures ... they would obviously tell us if they had ever found any such thing! Sure, sure they would -- settle down now -- but don't forget about ... the Brookings Report. No, they would not tell us -- we know this because they said that they would not tell us.
Imagine People Living on the Moon
An Amazing thing to Consider
If we were going to build some kind of structures on the Moon, what might we do? We would certainly have to use material that was strong like steel to withstand meteors and radiation, that's for sure. Turns out, when glass is exposed to conditions like on the Moon it becomes as hard as ... steel. On the Moon, glass would have the structural strength of steel; and just what is in plentiful supply on the Moon ... exactly ... glass! Imagine: long ago from a history we know nothing about, huge robots were busy at work constructing rods, beams, and panes that would eventually become enormous glass domes to house life on the Moon. What an amazing thing to consider! Even more amazing: a mind that can contemplate this possibility. Who could have ever done such a thing? Researchers say it was the same people who put that perfect equilateral triangle on the Moon crater named Ukert; they also say whoever it was also put that face in the Cydonia region of Mars. If this is true, we aren't who we think we are and we don't know anything about our true history. Researchers are convinced that we are the descendants of a species that inhabited and traveled around the whole solar system; they believe we can do the same thing again.
A Spider's Web can only be Seen when the Light is Right
Angles of Light
If it was just in one or two pictures that would be one thing, but this stuff seems to be all over the place. NASA says it's just "dust" being electrostatically suspended above the surface of the Moon; researchers say that is nonsense and have an entirely different explanation for this scattering of light that is impossibly in so many photos. What researchers describe can be visualized in this way: if you look at your car window at certain angles of Sunlight, you can see stuff on the window and see how dirty the glass is; however, at other angles you can't see anything on the window. Researchers suggest that this is why this stuff is not in all Moon photos; you have to be at the correct angle or you can't see it. Researchers point out that it is only when the Sun is behind and below the horizon, as in Sunrise or Sunset, that the refraction is able to be seen. This is easily understandable: it is just like a spider's web; you will not see it unless the Sun strikes it just right. A prism is another example; you will not see the rainbow unless it is in a particular alignment and angle in relation to the Sun. Some of the light scatterings above the surface of the Moon are refracting so much light that the film became overexposed when it was taken, but when brightness is reduced and enhancements are applied the cubical geometry becomes apparent. What are those parallel lines and cubes? Why is that there? It does indeed look very strange. Researchers suggest it is because we are looking at the surface of a glass-like structure that has been battered and beaten; light from the Sun hits the fractures at particular angles, the fractures then reflect that light back to the camera -- as can be seen in the photos.
Surveyor 4 Model
What happened to Surveyor 4?
Researchers suggest that the idea of domes on the Moon actually solves the mystery of Surveyor 4. It was supposed to land in Sinus Medii, but after a perfect mission something happened to it; it just ... disappeared. So, what happened to it? There was absolutely nothing to indicate any problems whatsoever, so why would it suddenly just vanish? After an absolutely perfect journey, all the way from Earth to a few seconds before landing on the Moon -- Surveyor 4 just disappeared without providing even the slightest clue of what happened to it. Whatever happened, it was instantaneous; nothing unusual was happening, then suddenly -- it was gone. Usually when these things happen there is an indicator of something going wrong; typically on-board cameras will catch something, as would be the case if there had been an explosion or malfunction. The reason explosions are usually captured on video is because the speed of light is faster than the speed of explosions, so explosions appear on recordings until the moment when the camera is destroyed. When that happens, it just cuts off -- in that very instant. As a matter of fact, that is just about the only way to instantly lose a spacecraft and have nothing whatsoever that shows what happened; this only happens when a camera suddenly stops working. A possible explanation: the camera was destroyed first, then the craft was destroyed and this is why there is no video of what happened; as the craft was coming down, according to researchers, the camera slammed directly into the battered remains of a giant glass dome. If this is what happened, it certainly would explain the instantaneous nature of the disappearance of Surveyor 4. It does seem very likely that whatever happened to Surveyor 4 happened first to the camera ... and it was meant to land exactly where the remains of one of these ancient domes are supposed to be located. That certainly doesn't prove anything, but it adds up and would make sense ... if ... the domes are real. On Earth we have something called the Biosphere 2, which was originally intended to study ways to maintain human life in outer space. The Biosphere 2 is somewhat of a dome-shaped structure constructed of a geometric grid-like frame that glass panels are attached to. According to researchers, a version of this is what is on the Moon and what Surveyor 4 hit when it disappeared. We don't know that this is true and we don't know if there really are (or were) glass domes on the moon; however, we do know that NASA would be the last to tell us about it if it were true. We know this because of ... the Brookings Report; so before anyone gets all arrogant about how foolish this all is, keep in mind, our only real source of information has agreed to keep secret any evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Why, exactly, do people believe that we would know about this if it was true? Who is going to tell you about it? Why would you know anything about it? All any of us know is what "they" have told us ... and they themselves said they weren't going to tell us if they did find anything! We don't know anything ... and acting like we do is idiotic and arrogant. We don't know that there are not domes on the Moon -- we don't know that. What if we decided it was "impossible" and therefore never looked? And what if that whole time there sat the remains of these ancient domes? What if that's true? That is amazing to consider, but it requires an open mind to do so; do you have an open mind?
When you look around for ancient ruins, sometimes you have to look at the underlying geometric patterns to see that they are there. If you look on Earth at places that have been destroyed, you can still see the underlying geometry; many ancient sites on Earth were only discovered because of the underlying geometric structure. A city could become completely leveled by a tornado, then eroded, washed away, battered, beaten, and allowed for nature to completely reclaim the area; but the underlying geometric patterns of that city's existence will be visible for almost "ever". Whatever happens: for thousands and thousands of years, the geometric indications of roads, sidewalks, parking lots, foundations of buildings, and so much more will still be able to be identified. This type of geometric evidence will persist long after any other kind of evidence has been permanently removed, and this is how ancient sites have been discovered all over the world -- underlying geometric patterns that indicate artificial construction. Carl Sagan said, "The first indication of intelligent life on Earth lies in the geometric regularity of its constructions." Researchers say, this type of geometry exists on multiple bodies in our solar system ... one of which is the Moon, and they say it is a devastated planet that once had a lot of people living on it. This idea certainly departs from everything we think we know, but it cannot be totally out of the question. This is the kind of thing that challenges minds and beliefs, but it is not a topic that is ever going to "come up" in a conversation or be brought to anyone's attention. Unless someone specifically goes looking, they are simply never going to come across this kind of information; many things are this same way. It's not hard for something to remain out of the public mind: if you don't even know that "something" is a "something", how will you know to go looking for it? You can't really go looking for something unless you know it exists, so you kinda have to stumble on to this type of information ... but how do you just "stumble on" to information that no-one ever talks about? This is kind of a circular conversation, but it explains why so few people have ever heard of anything like this before. Only certain kinds of people are ever going to come across this type of information; you can bet they will always be those who are still looking for answers even after years and years of research. People who already know everything will never find this stuff; they stopped asking questions long ago. That's how ignorance works: the theory doesn't have to be true, but ignorance never even knows it is a theory to begin with. At least know that someone somewhere believes this, you don't have to agree, but at least know about it; otherwise, you'll just be ignorant of it and no kind of ignorance can be beneficial to anyone. You'll never see anything unless you look for it; go look for it, and see if you find it. You might and you might not, but you will never know unless you try. You have to entertain a thought to actually explore it; so, entertain the thought ... look at it and think it through -- if after truly thoughtful consideration you still think it is nonsense, discard it right into the trash can at once. Good ol' "file 13" with that one right there. At least you will have looked, you will have learned something, and if someone ever does "bring it up" you will be able to participate in a conversation about it. Learning something is never a bad thing to do; it is always good, even if what you are learning about is a theory that you don't believe is true -- learn about it anyway, you might find out amazing things you never knew anything about.
Do we know our true history?
Unless humanity destroys itself or is destroyed by something else, it seems we will someday need contained environments like the Biosphere 2. Logically, the Moon should be one of the very first places this would happen, but what if it already did? We tend to think we are the pinnacle of intelligent life on our planet and in the solar system, but what if we're not? What if stories of ancient highly advanced technological societies, like Atlantis, are true? And what if those ancient advanced societies did indeed travel throughout the solar system? What if they colonized the Moon thousands, or even millions, of years ago? What if they built domes of glass to live in, and what if researchers are correct in what they believe they have found? What then? Maybe a very long time ago a race of people colonized many bodies in our solar system, but some terrible cataclysm knocked that society of people back to the "stone age". And what if that is where our modern account of "history" begins? It seems a most probable scenario, in theme if not detail, based on all the evidence available to us. What if they really did though ... what if someone long ago built huge glass domes on the Moon and actually lived there? Wouldn't that quite dramatically change who we are and who we can become? Quite obviously it would, and it really does look like that very well could be what actually happened. Maybe we have somehow been disconnected with our true history and things are much more fantastic than what we have ever been told. These structures on the Moon simply should not be there, but according to researchers, they are there. If we ever go to live on the Moon, we might just have to rebuild these ancient structures ... if they are really there -- maybe they are.
What has NASA concealed?
Butthurt Scientists and Bewildered Religious Fanatics
It seems this journey ends right back where it began -- it may be a giant paradoxical loop that is beyond all escape. After all this, we come back to the Brookings Report to gain more perspective. Do you remember the Brookings Report? Of course you do. The Brookings Report makes it plainly obvious that the human race will instantly kill over and die the moment that proof of us not being alone in the Universe is disclosed. That's the way the document makes it sound: society will just disintegrate in an instant and chaos will erupt everywhere simultaneously at the very moment evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence is revealed. But that's just not true; maybe it was true at one time, but obviously that time (if it ever existed in the first place) has long since passed. The 1960s was a very long time ago -- what has NASA actually discovered? Decade after decade, what have they concealed? And for what? Why would they not have abandoned the findings of the Brookings Report long ago? Maybe because it becomes very difficult to stop lying after starting; it must be simply exhausting to keep up a lie. Mark Twain said, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." Remembering the details of a lie has to be emotionally and mentally taxing; lying surely generates huge amounts of stress for whoever is doing it. It is also often noted that one lie begets another, and another, and another; apparently, you have to keep lying to cover previous lies. NASA might have so many lies to cover that we will never get a straight answer about anything from them. If they have indeed been lying all this time since the Brookings Report, it certainly would be a challenge for them to start telling the truth now. But haven't we had about enough? Have they not realized that, by now, we can certainly handle being told the truth about whatever they have found? What could possibly still be compelling them to withhold information? The Brookings Report indicated that religious fanaticism was a big factor; apparently, religious people would have a hard time bridging the gap between their faith and the knowledge that humans are not the only intelligent beings in "God's" Universe. This seems quite silly: if aliens exist in "God's Universe", doesn't that mean "God" created them too? Good, there ya go then, problem solved. Apparently not though, at least not according to the Brookings Report. Really? Is this the reason? Religion? Is that why we have been lied to? Fanatical fundamentalism? Sorry, but that's just not good enough; it does not matter what any study concluded -- that's just not good enough! If you are going to lie to us to protect the illusions of the religious, you are just as bad as they are. This is insanity, and we should stop putting up with it. Another part of the Brookings Report suggests that it could be devastating to scientists and engineers if they were faced with any kind of superior intelligence ... and just who runs NASA? Scientists and engineers! Of course they do, and they might just be the very last people interested in facing a more advanced intelligence than their own. How humiliating it must be for an arrogant "scientist" to admit that something is smarter than they are! What a nightmare that would be! They (scientists and engineers) surely are of the most arrogant, maybe the Brookings Report was onto something after all. Arrogant so-called "scientists", who think they know it all, might well have a very difficult time being seen as "second best" -- makes perfect sense, but at some point they really should make an attempt get over themselves. If they are not telling the truth, they need to begin to do so at once and let all these pieces fall where they may; butthurt arrogant scientists and bewildered religious fanatics are not good enough reasons to keep us in the dark. Someone please get them some Charmin at once -- ultra-soft!